The most important part of the US Constitution is at the beginning of each section:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common [defense], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

A tought (don't blame me, I know you love the Constitution more than we unfortunately do)...
Considering its age (the Constitution), maybe the "right to bear a gun that shall not be infringed" was right in the past.
Times change in my POV, and I am afraid that NRA, extremists parties and so on are using this point of the Constitution to promote firearm spreading.
Zargon, you stated that a lot of criminals do use illegal firearms, and that people should keep guns to defense themselves, ok, but the main point is that you, respectful citizen, are somewhat superior to a criminal. However, as I already wrote, you can go nut and start doing some crazy s... in a mall, in a school or in front of your home (no, the point ain't the: "I can kill you with an axe or with any other thing I hold in the garage", because such things often happen in US or Finland where arms are widespread), and that should never happen in one of the our so-called civilized western societies. Killing somebody isn't a manifestation of freedomness, in my humble opinion, even if he's a thief. It's not even a matter of number of criminal offences lowering more or less without guns, but probably an ethical matter.

Aside from this, I heard about the murder rate in DC while planning a trip some time ago and I was shocked. I tought Chicago and Detroit hold the primate, but I never tought that the city in which the President lives had such a sad primate. What's the reason?

That is entirely possible, but still not my point which was "MURDER RATE", the reason why we have such a high crime rate in general terms is because of weak laws, weak punishment, weak rehabilitation, and a score of social ills that are part of the cause of much of the crime in the country.

There are lots of accidental shooting deaths and injuries in the US; with so many guns around, there are bound to be. Most are from handguns, IIANM. It is a high price to pay for "a right"; and like all rights, it must be balanced against other rights.

Then there is the question of "defending" oneself. We have laws and police for a reason. If you want everybody to be able to defend themselves with a gun, then what are the laws and the police for? And if *everybody* had a gun, then we have anarchy, and we might as well throw away the Constitution, and all the laws, and let the police go...

If you want to defend yourself and your home -- get a large dog. They will do a better job than you will. You'll be sleepy and/or panicked, and you'll hesitate and/or the intruder will just shoot you first -- because remember you wanted *everybody* to have guns.

There are lots of accidental shooting deaths and injuries in the US; with so many guns around, there are bound to be. Most are from handguns, IIANM. It is a high price to pay for "a right"; and like all rights, it must be balanced against other rights.

Then there is the question of "defending" oneself. We have laws and police for a reason. If you want everybody to be able to defend themselves with a gun, then what are the laws and the police for? And if *everybody* had a gun, then we have anarchy, and we might as well throw away the Constitution, and all the laws, and let the police go...

If you want to defend yourself and your home -- get a large dog. They will do a better job than you will. You'll be sleepy and/or panicked, and you'll hesitate and/or the intruder will just shoot you first -- because remember you wanted *everybody* to have guns.

thats utter bs, in teh 'olden days' everyone had a gun, and isntead of anarchy they built this nation from the ground up.

xan you are missing my point in DC. they did zero to stop it from happening, they merely took away from guns from law abiding citizens and did nothing to stop criminals.

flapane: using your flawed logic, since at any point in time anyone can become a psycho, we would strip everyone of anything remotely dangerous?

banning guns a very un

andy: likely way to lower the murder rate, or make the nation safer. you also cant extrapoliate that if we banned guns, the gun murder rate = the change in overall murder rate. most of those murders will still occur with a different tool.

thats just not going to happen. i fyou think you can make a direct comparison thats great, and stats can do it, it deosnt mean they will paint an accurate picture, just a flawed comparison.

like I posted, UK has a way higher violent crime, even though our murder rate is 4x higher, they overall violent crime rate is way higher. that would include attempted murder ETC.

you are looking at a pigeon holed issue by just looking at murders when violent crime in general being lowered should be the end goal. not more bad crime but a few less murders instead

PEOPLE murder people.

guns do not get up walk out of my safe and shoot people. you all seem to think that their mere presence creates murders and crime, and thats simply not true as its an inanimate object.

it just seems like alot of you naively think that removing guns will make criminals become good members of society and I just see that as incredibly unlikely.

I should also point out, that I certainyl dont think less of you for your opinions and appreciate the back and forth to see how you make your conclusions.

A tought (don't blame me, I know you love the Constitution more than we unfortunately do)...Considering its age (the Constitution), maybe the "right to bear a gun that shall not be infringed" was right in the past.Times change in my POV, and I am afraid that NRA, extremists parties and so on are using this point of the Constitution to promote firearm spreading.Zargon, you stated that a lot of criminals do use illegal firearms, and that people should keep guns to defense themselves, ok, but the main point is that you, respectful citizen, are somewhat superior to a criminal. However, as I already wrote, you can go nut and start doing some crazy s... in a mall, in a school or in front of your home (no, the point ain't the: "I can kill you with an axe or with any other thing I hold in the garage", because such things often happen in US or Finland where arms are widespread), and that should never happen in one of the our so-called civilized western societies. Killing somebody isn't a manifestation of freedomness, in my humble opinion, even if he's a thief. It's not even a matter of number of criminal offences lowering more or less without guns, but probably an ethical matter.

Aside from this, I heard about the murder rate in DC while planning a trip some time ago and I was shocked. I tought Chicago and Detroit hold the primate, but I never tought that the city in which the President lives had such a sad primate. What's the reason?

how is that "in the past"? if you look through many of the political writings at the time, the point of private ownership of firearms was in part to keep the power of the government in check. those persons consider governments to be inherently dominating, and thus the private ownership of firearms was considered a strategic investment against overexpansion of government.

what has changed about that? do you trust your government now any more than they did then? if you do, you're a fool.

I don't get it.
Are you saying that owning a gun helps in avoiding the gov't overexpansion? That sounds really funny to me, or at least it could have worked "in the past", in president Washington era, not in 2010.
Do you really believe they (govt and the corporations) are afraid of some citizens holding some guns? Don't they already do WHATEVER they want?
Sorry, I prefer the "I want to defend myself from thieves" excuse, at least it is reasonable, even if criticizable.

xan you are missing my point in DC. they did zero to stop it from happening, they merely took away from guns from law abiding citizens and did nothing to stop criminals.

Or maybe you are missing the point...(again)
The lesson we should have learned from DC gun control, is it was too little too late, especially when you can buy assault weapons by the trunkload as easily as a Slurpee, by just taking a few steps over the invisible line on the map from DC over to VA.

Do you honestly think 9mm's on vigilantes hip's at starbucks is what a "well regulated militia" means?

flaplane- Tell you what, drive on over to the poor part of town and show some black and or brown people, that you don't already know, a picture of our president as a witch doctor with a bone though the nose, a sign comparing him to the worst race cleanser in recent history and as black man in while face...and ask em if they feel offended or not. Let us know what they said 'umkay?

Most murders are committed by people who know their victims; not strangers.

The most important feature about our Constitution is that it can be changed -- updated and corrected and perfected. I think that the nature of firearms today has changed greatly, in many ways. The cost has come way down, they allow a lot of shots rapidly, and arming every individual is not what was intended in the Second Amendment.

If everybody is armed, then a lot more people will be killed -- and for what?

1) Criminals will always be able to acquire guns illegally - as they do in the UK for instance.

2) If a person wants to kill or rob or rape another person, not having a gun will not stop that person using another kind of weapon.

3) Perhaps it is the nature of society in America that causes the high violent crime rate. Maybe that is where peoples attention should be focused.

In any case, if the right to bear arms was taken away from the American people and assuming that they could be cajoled into handing over their legal weapons, the logistics of getting rid of all the illegal guns in the US would be formidable. It could never be done and there would be a large number of guns in circulation for many years to come. What would change?

The Swiss appear to be extremely socially responsible people and most live in a traditional 'family' - father goes to work while mum looks after the children. Is that a better way to raise children - so that they do not grow up to be gun toting drug dealers?

I don't get it.Are you saying that owning a gun helps in avoiding the gov't overexpansion? That sounds really funny to me, or at least it could have worked "in the past", in president Washington era, not in 2010.Do you really believe they (govt and the corporations) are afraid of some citizens holding some guns? Don't they already do WHATEVER they want?Sorry, I prefer the "I want to defend myself from thieves" excuse, at least it is reasonable, even if criticizable.

you failed to grasp the idea of a "strategic investment".

but then, what does it matter? you're not an american.

it's not like you can have a valid opinion on american politics. that goes for andyb, and any other brits or canadians that feel they should have some say on american politics in general.

No I can't understand, that's not a strategic investment to me but, as you said, it doesn't matter .
Telling somebody to shut up (that's what you said with gentle words) it's not very democratic by the way. For example I won't blame somebody because of not being italian or brit. Indeed that will be a great opportunity to see what somebody thinks of us from outside. I'll tell him: "ok, that's your point of view and I agree/don't agree", I won't say him: "you cannot understand/grasp because you don't live here"... furthermore you don't know what one knows and what doesn't about something and aside from this his thought will ALWAYS be valid, acceptable, more or less criticizable and understandable... that's democracy, mate.
Never mind, anyway.

xan_userOf course they should feel offended, it is like comparing blacks to an inferior race in cultural terms and to the worst person ever seen in the history.

Or maybe you are missing the point...(again)The lesson we should have learned from DC gun control, is it was too little too late, especially when you can buy assault weapons by the trunkload as easily as a Slurpee, by just taking a few steps over the invisible line on the map from DC over to VA.

Do you honestly think 9mm's on vigilantes hip's at starbucks is what a "well regulated militia" means?

flaplane- Tell you what, drive on over to the poor part of town and show some black and or brown people, that you don't already know, a picture of our president as a witch doctor with a bone though the nose, a sign comparing him to the worst race cleanser in recent history and as black man in while face...and ask em if they feel offended or not. Let us know what they said 'umkay?

the only one that is racist is the witchdoctor one. comparing him to hitler, while wrong and offensive, simply isnt racist.

why is 'everyone who carries a firearm a vigilante'? and well regulated militia? you cant form a militia, they have made it pretty impossible, not to mention doing anything involving one gets you on a terror watch list. also no where does it explicity say that the right to bear arms is limited to those in a militia, just that we have both rights

and great, they bought them legally, they are still breaking the law by having them, and they do dont they, so that law works real well. making things illegal doesnt make things go away. prohibition taught us that as well.

I would have to agree with judge, that guns arent the problem, and that its something in society and lots of the people here that seem to have little moral compass.

also, no offense, but your family being sharpshooters doesnt make them experts on socialology or congressional law, so should drop that flawed experts opinion argument.

the tea party movment now is a bastard of what it originally was, and, only those crazy assholes get on CNN, and Foxnews, because both sides had issues with it because it cuts into their partys lines. the core beleif was less spending and more accountable spending at that. Likes paygo, but unlike the democrats, actually practicing paygo.

Perhaps it is the nature of society in America that causes the high violent crime rate. Maybe that is where peoples attention should be focused.

QFT!

Zargon wrote:

the only one that is racist is the witchdoctor one. comparing him to hitler, while wrong and offensive, simply isnt racist.

How many black people, you don't already know, did you actually ask?

Who said everyone was a vigilante?- even tho they are the ones buying more of these 'guns' along with the racists.
My point, that you keep missing, is our forefathers wouldn't call citizens with hunting for human weapons on their hips in public places a well regulated militia.

We deregulated the markets, and in the long run things got worse than ever.
If we dont regulate guns better, we will get nothing but the continued escalation of violence.

Who said everyone was a vigilante?- even tho they are the ones buying more of these 'guns' along with the racists.My point, that you keep missing, is our forefathers wouldn't call citizens with hunting for human weapons on their hips in public places a well regulated militia. We deregulated the markets, and in the long run things got worse than ever.If we dont regulate guns better, we will get nothing but the continued escalation of violence.

because some dumbass says something is racist. doesnt mean it is. this cultur eis so retardedly oversensitive. everything said about a minority thats not a compliment, isnt a racial remark.

no where on the hitler sign does it mention race, it mentions POLICY.

dont be so ignornat just so you can keep tossing the racist card out

I am unaware of there being a vigilante justice problem in the US.

Legally owned firearms acount for something like less than 5% of all crimes, and from what I remember less than half a percent of the time the gun use wasnt deemed justified

One sign says "Obama's HR 3200 = Hitler T4" equating the House Health care bill with Hitler's eradication of the Jews, homosexuals, the Rom, political critics, etc. is simply failed argument -- and it is hateful, and it is bigotry. The craziest thing with this one, is it reveals the fear of a black president who might "get back at us white folks"; maybe because they know that many of the white presidents were racists (some owned slaves, some belonged to the KKK, some were Nazi sympathizers; ironically enough!). These people are assuming that is what President Obama is "up to".

Right...

The next sign is also bigoted -- he apparently doesn't like being taxed by a black president. But taxes are a reality no matter the color of the skin of the person in the presidency.

The "Joker"/white face is deeply racist -- all three people are wearing the same blue tee shirts with a snake on them (maybe something about don't tread on me"?) and "We The People". Do they think they they are "real" Americans? As someone famously said "elections have consequences".

I think these people (probably so-called Tea Partiers?) need to ask Sarah Palin what she *really* thinks about the Canadian health care system. I think they are panicked over nothing, and if they went out and bought abunch of firearms and ammunition when the president was elected, then they wasted their money.

Could they even explain why they put a communist sign on one of those signs? What's the point? Because of health care reform? Is it a really bad thing according to them? (or it's just a taxation issue? What if they couldn't afford a health insurance in the future? I'd ROTFL at that point.)

Why do this people (I suspect that the source is the same) put togheter Nazi stuff and communist stuff? Aren't they supposed to be at the opposites? So are we (is he) in 1939 Nazi era, or in CCCP? Maybe both? I'm confused :lol:
Let's decide: either it's a communist reform, or a nazi reform.

What's the nazi "sin" in that reform? Saving money for people with a chance of surviving? It's really sad, really, but you have to save money in some way, and I suspect it's very hard. If they have better ideas, why don't suggesting them?

And what's the communist "sin"? Letting everybody (I have a friend in San Joaquin Valley, she lost her house and she's dying of a form of diabete cause can't afford the expenses, isn't that sad?) have health care?
I suspect they don't even know what's the meaning of that symbol, and somebody just told them to paint it because it's a sort of offence.

A lot of people (here in the USA anyway), conflate all the "other" political philosophies -- Nazi, communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, atheist -- they are all "bad" and they don't bother to find out anything more. Sometimes these are all used interchangeably, and it only serves to show how shallow they are.

For some people, resenting all taxes is a knee-jerk reaction -- until they "need" something from the government. They resent the government, and they justify this by pointing to the Constitution -- but that is the reason we have the government.

Granted, there is a lot of stupid/bad/corrupt things the government does or allows -- but the problem is bad government; not all government. IMO, if we could extricate the big money concerns, and remove their influence in the government (aka real campaign reform!) then government would by definition be better and more responsive to the real needs that We the People require from it -- and then more people would not have the negative reaction to taxes.

Rejecting taxes and government out of hand is just silly and totally wrongheaded. Of course we need a better health care system -- we pay at least 2X more than any of the other countries who cover everybody. We are the only country where there are any bankruptcies due to medical expenses -- they just don't happen where the health care system actually works.

No I can't understand, that's not a strategic investment to me but, as you said, it doesn't matter .Telling somebody to shut up (that's what you said with gentle words) it's not very democratic by the way. For example I won't blame somebody because of not being italian or brit. Indeed that will be a great opportunity to see what somebody thinks of us from outside. I'll tell him: "ok, that's your point of view and I agree/don't agree", I won't say him: "you cannot understand/grasp because you don't live here"... furthermore you don't know what one knows and what doesn't about something and aside from this his thought will ALWAYS be valid, acceptable, more or less criticizable and understandable... that's democracy, mate. Never mind, anyway.

xan_userOf course they should feel offended, it is like comparing blacks to an inferior race in cultural terms and to the worst person ever seen in the history.

i didnt say you can't grasp it because you dont live here, i said your POV is completely negated because you arent a US citizen.

One sign says "Obama's HR 3200 = Hitler T4" equating the House Health care bill with Hitler's eradication of the Jews, homosexuals, the Rom, political critics, etc. is simply failed argument -- and it is hateful, and it is bigotry. The craziest thing with this one, is it reveals the fear of a black president who might "get back at us white folks"; maybe because they know that many of the white presidents were racists (some owned slaves, some belonged to the KKK, some were Nazi sympathizers; ironically enough!). These people are assuming that is what President Obama is "up to".

Right...

The next sign is also bigoted -- he apparently doesn't like being taxed by a black president. But taxes are a reality no matter the color of the skin of the person in the presidency.

The "Joker"/white face is deeply racist -- all three people are wearing the same blue tee shirts with a snake on them (maybe something about don't tread on me"?) and "We The People". Do they think they they are "real" Americans? As someone famously said "elections have consequences".

I think these people (probably so-called Tea Partiers?) need to ask Sarah Palin what she *really* thinks about the Canadian health care system. I think they are panicked over nothing, and if they went out and bought abunch of firearms and ammunition when the president was elected, then they wasted their money.

i dont think the term "reaching" is quite enough for this line of bullshit.

it's not like you can have a valid opinion on american politics. that goes for andyb, and any other brits or canadians that feel they should have some say on american politics in general.

Big difference between having a "valid opinion" on something and having a "say" in something.
Anyone of any nationality is entitled to have an opinion on anything but obviously only American voters can have a say on American politics; unless of course, you don't think that us non-Americans should even voice their opinion on what happens in the US?
Actually, an awful lot of Europeans are of the opinion that most Americans don't give a shit about how the rest of the world regards them. Some of the more perceptive of you (Americans) will know about the bad press you get in the rest of the world and some of you will think that it is deserved. Fayd, you sound like you fit the stereotype.

it's not like you can have a valid opinion on american politics. that goes for andyb, and any other brits or canadians that feel they should have some say on american politics in general.

Big difference between having a "valid opinion" on something and having a "say" in something.Anyone of any nationality is entitled to have an opinion on anything but obviously only American voters can have a say on American politics; unless of course, you don't think that us non-Americans should even voice their opinion on what happens in the US?Actually, an awful lot of Europeans are of the opinion that most Americans don't give a shit about how the rest of the world regards them. Some of the more perceptive of you (Americans) will know about the bad press you get in the rest of the world and some of you will think that it is deserved. Fayd, you sound like you fit the stereotype.

i do indeed fit the stereotype. i dont care what the rest of the world cares of americans, but that's a separate matter from the rest of the world voicing their opinions on american politics.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum